Re: Sir Fred Goodwin is not a banker
Nothing wrong at all Sapphy, UNTIL it starts to move into the sinister realms of corruption and cover up as has clearly happened in the Goodwin case and others.
It is a sad fact that although this particular organisation has laid claim to altruistic principles and all pay lip service to never using it for personal gain, most members are in it for just that and exactly that ---- poersonal gain. Just look at Goodwin alone. Look at he size of his payout. The last figures I could get for Masonic charitable contributions were for 2004. They amounted to a total of £12m and some siginificant proportion of that went to their own charities. If, as is assumed, there are approximately 1 millioin members in the UK as a whole, and many many of that number are in the very highest ecehelons of wage earners. At 12 quid a head that makes the likes of Goodwin et al very generous people indeed does it not? Or does it?
Perhaps those who doubt should flog up on Albert Pike, his writings and beliefs and as for the illuminati, forget Dan Brown altogether rubbish, look up Adam Weishaupt and his successors well inot the twentieth century.
With an open mind there is case for some concern at the very least as to what is actually going on. On purely the banker front as we are discussing Goodwin here, why is Bilderburg kept so secret? why was one particular years worth of minutes from the Iron Mountain Conferences removed from the internet three times by the CIA? Why now does the very existance of the Iron Mountain conference be denied? If the banks wish to return to a position of trust and respectability, then they will have to be more transparent, honest and deal with the likes of Goodwin in such a way that justice is seen to be done not hidden by a veil of secrecy and superinjunctions. Without any conspiracy theory what has gone on and is going on leads to the conclusion that at the very least some form of collusion is happening when it mpost definitely should not.
regards
Garlok
Nothing wrong at all Sapphy, UNTIL it starts to move into the sinister realms of corruption and cover up as has clearly happened in the Goodwin case and others.
It is a sad fact that although this particular organisation has laid claim to altruistic principles and all pay lip service to never using it for personal gain, most members are in it for just that and exactly that ---- poersonal gain. Just look at Goodwin alone. Look at he size of his payout. The last figures I could get for Masonic charitable contributions were for 2004. They amounted to a total of £12m and some siginificant proportion of that went to their own charities. If, as is assumed, there are approximately 1 millioin members in the UK as a whole, and many many of that number are in the very highest ecehelons of wage earners. At 12 quid a head that makes the likes of Goodwin et al very generous people indeed does it not? Or does it?
Perhaps those who doubt should flog up on Albert Pike, his writings and beliefs and as for the illuminati, forget Dan Brown altogether rubbish, look up Adam Weishaupt and his successors well inot the twentieth century.
With an open mind there is case for some concern at the very least as to what is actually going on. On purely the banker front as we are discussing Goodwin here, why is Bilderburg kept so secret? why was one particular years worth of minutes from the Iron Mountain Conferences removed from the internet three times by the CIA? Why now does the very existance of the Iron Mountain conference be denied? If the banks wish to return to a position of trust and respectability, then they will have to be more transparent, honest and deal with the likes of Goodwin in such a way that justice is seen to be done not hidden by a veil of secrecy and superinjunctions. Without any conspiracy theory what has gone on and is going on leads to the conclusion that at the very least some form of collusion is happening when it mpost definitely should not.
regards
Garlok
Comment